+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? (/showthread.php?tid=62762)
The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? - tuqqer - 09-24-2008
I use dual montiors, and like getting new ones every 18 months or so, selling the old ones on eBay. I've been through 5 sets now, and this last set, View Sonic VA226w, is the first time I've tried widescreens.
I don't like them. Or, they're okay, but I miss the additional height of normal 1200x1600 units (widescreens at 22" are 1050x1600).
Are normal screen sizes the new betamax? Are they eventually going the way of the dodo? I rarely see them on sale any more. It's all the widescreens now.
I think it's a sign that I just need to suck it up. But I am watching the deals; I'd eBay these otherwise very nice monitors for a good pair of 1200x1600s in a heartbeat.
Re: The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? - guitarist - 09-24-2008
Widescreen displays are the normal ones. It's the previous ones that were the wrong dimension.
Re: The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? - mattkime - 09-24-2008
you're old!
Re: The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? - tuqqer - 09-24-2008
mattkime wrote:
you're old!
And while I'm at it, what the hell happened to vinyl records and 8 track?
Re: The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? - bik - 09-24-2008
Personally, I like a wide-screen for the main monitor, and a 4:3 for the secondary monitor (for palettes or whatever).
If you're disappointed with the height of a 22" 1680x1050, it sounds like you should look at a 24" 1920x1200.
Re: The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? - tuqqer - 09-24-2008
bik wrote:
If you're disappointed with the height of a 22" 1680x1050, it sounds like you should look at a 24" 1920x1200.
I'm thinking the same.
Re: The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? - gabester - 09-24-2008
You could also look at rotating your widescreens 90 degrees... that would definitely give you more vertical space. Um... and 2 of them side by side kind of look like one big 4x3 with a crease down the middle. :turbo:
g=
Re: The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? - ztirffritz - 09-24-2008
Widescreen is the standard. It always has been...it was just really expensive to make it with vacuum tubes. (I have seen a widescreen CRT though. It was enormous and weighed about 100lbs. It was probably 1 of 2 sold by Dell.) Digital TV is now broadcast in widescreen format, movies are widescreen, DVDs are widescreen (except for the weird ones that they chopped the sides off of so that they fit the height of ancient TVs.)
Re: The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? - Filliam H. Muffman - 09-24-2008
:oldfogey:
Is there something wrong with 1920 x1200? 1600 x 1050 seems to be a low budget resolution that can display a clipped 1080 HD image. My guess it the 21" to 22" wide screens are benefiting from mass production of cheap panels for HDTV. There are several 1600 x 1200 displays at Newegg but they almost as expensive as the low end 24" displays.
Re: The Widescreen takeover. Are regular monitors a thing of the past? - RAMd®d - 09-24-2008
I like the idea of a 4:3 going ballistic.
It works well for browsers too, since so many sites what to put a ton of crap at the top.
It's a good thing that displays are getting cheaper because I need a larger widescreen display to get the vertical height back of my previous 4:3.